In other words Varqanir, I’m not rejecting nor am I advocating others should reject what the best and the brightest have to say about evolution. Full disclosure I believe in creation and evolution. I think the two go hand in hand.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
sigh…
So we’ve gone from “abortion is okay because science” to “abortion is okay because there is no spoon, the world is the Matrix”… All because said poster couldn’t actually back up any of his “because science” claims with science?
I love abortion threads, lol. amazing to watch people torture themselves into the justification for rationalizing the slicing up and vacuuming out of babies.
[/quote]
It’s America. People have the freedumb to torture themselves into the justification of anything. Even torture!
I mean, in what other country could you have a women’s college ban the feminist play “The Vagina Monologues” because it might be offensive to women without vaginas?
FREEEEEDUUUUUMB!!!
Here’s another thought exercise:
If a couple conceives via In vitro fertilisation, but has to use a surrogate mother, does the surrogate mother have a right abort the baby if she so chooses?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
sigh…
So we’ve gone from “abortion is okay because science” to “abortion is okay because there is no spoon, the world is the Matrix”… All because said poster couldn’t actually back up any of his “because science” claims with science?
I love abortion threads, lol. amazing to watch people torture themselves into the justification for rationalizing the slicing up and vacuuming out of babies.
[/quote]
It’s America. People have the freedumb to torture themselves into the justification of anything. Even torture!
I mean, in what other country could you have a women’s college ban the feminist play “The Vagina Monologues” because it might be offensive to women without vaginas?
FREEEEEDUUUUUMB!!!
[/quote]
lmao. There is a very good reason wonderful people like Cushin and Push like you so much, and speak so highly of you.
(Even though I think Cush is either mad or disappointed in me right now, lol.)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Abortion is simply the execution of a human being. An innocent one at that. [/quote]
This.
I have much more respect for the Pro-aborts that actually admit this.
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Provide a scientific proof that the embryonic or fetal phase of human life renders that life, not human.[/quote]
But… Pat… You believe in God and are pro-life… According to this thread your anti science…
;)[/quote]
Yup, the same cliches always get repeated. We God believers are by default dumb flat-earthers.[/quote]
Biblical flat Earth claims must be addressed because many biblical literalists claim the Bible disproves evolution and other scientific theories prima facie. Since there is no real debate about the shape of the Earth, these passages call biblical literalism into question.
In numerous passages, the Bible claims that the earth is flat and/or rectangular. Whether or not the Bible “really” says this is often debated â?? but if the Bible was written by people who lived in societies who were unaware that the Earth is a more-or-less spherical object which orbits the Sun then we would expect this ignorance to be reflected in their writings.
Flat Earth claims
"Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king â??saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earthâ?¦ reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.â?? Only with a flat Earth could a tall tree be visible from “the Earth’s farthest bounds,” â?? this is impossible on a spherical earth.
Theological rebuttal: The strength of Daniel 4:10-11 as an argument for a flat Earth is considerably reduced by the fact that this part of the Book of Daniel recounts a dream experienced by the Persian king during a fit of madness. Thus, it does not necessarily refer to an actually existing tree or make any statements about real cosmology. This fact would seem to indicate that biblical literalists do not even know how to read the Bible properly. It also ignores that the New Testament claims that the Devil showed Jesus the entire world from the top of a mountain, which would not be possible on a spherical Earth:
Matthew 4:8: “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world”
Luke 4:5: “And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.”
Theological rebuttal again: The strength of using Matthew and Luke as flat Earth claims is reduced by the fact that “Kingdom” is a human construct. If you classify all the places on Earth you can’t see from that particular location as “Not Kingdoms” such as barbaric tribes and non-monarchies, It can be fitted within that description. However, How the devil knows those places are not ruled by Kings (Again, the concept of “King” is also a human concept) is not exactly clear.
Isaiah 40:22: “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.”
Indeed, this quote is used to prove that Bible claims that the Earth is spherical. Some scholars point out that Isaiah never uses the Modern Hebrew word for sphere Kadur anywhere. It is not clear whether this is relevant, seeing as the interpretation of the word Kadur in the bible is disputed ‘Four Corners’ Flat Earth claims
Isaiah 11:12 “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
Revelation 7:1 “And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.”
As with the Daniel quote, this cannot be taken literally; the events described in Revelation are a series of visions, rather than an accurate description of the world. Another interpretation of this verse is that four corners of the earth don’t refer to literal four corners but to cardinal directions, which is further supported by the description of the four winds which are commonly referenced by their cardinal direction.
It is obvious, that no scholars admit whether the Bible suggested the spherical earth. But there have been Christians and Muslims who still believe that Earth is actually flat, like Wilbur Glenn Voliva, who even offered $5000 as a prize for anyone who can prove that earth is not Flat. Although his predictions about Earth ending in 1923, 1927, 1930, and 1935 failed too.
Teaching about spherical Earth was banned in the schools of Zion, Illinois, at that time.
Mohammed Yusuf, founder of terrorist group Boko Haram stated that Theory of Evolution as well as spherical Earth teachings should be rejected because they are against Islam.
In a 2007’s TV debate, an Iraqi Astronomer, Fadhel Al-Said tried hard to push the ideas that the Earth is flat and Qur’anic verses also supports that the Sun (also flat) is much smaller than Earth and revolves around it.
Former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, mentioned flat-earthers in passing (though he was actually speaking against mandatory teaching of creation science):
â??â??There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith.[/quote]
By this I am going to assume you cannot then provide any scientific evidence that a human in the early stages of development is not a human being? Correct?
Because you just posted some load of horseshit about the Bible from infidels.org or some other atheist propaganda site that has zero to do with the topic.
Basically, your just throwing up anything and hoping it will stick. It seems to me you’re actually more interested in starting a religious fight, claiming the superiority of your atheistic beliefs rather than being able to stick to a topic which in actuality is not a religious topic. It’s a moral one.
You either are ok with killing innocent human lives or you are not. The line in the sand about consciousness and all this other bullshit is an arbitrary one, it’s not based scientifically. Science universally confirms that the organism, en utero from the earliest stages, is a human being. It’s a scientific fact, and there is nothing you can do about it.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In other words Varqanir, I’m not rejecting nor am I advocating others should reject what the best and the brightest have to say about evolution. Full disclosure I believe in creation and evolution. I think the two go hand in hand. [/quote]
Okay. Fair enough.
But just so you know, this:
is talking about abiogenesis (life from non-life), not evolution. Different theory. A complementary theory, but evolution begins where abiogenesis ends.
And anyway, who’s to say that life didn’t arise from dirt? Just add water, and you’ve got primordial soup!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Abortion is simply the execution of a human being. An innocent one at that. [/quote]
This.
I have much more respect for the Pro-aborts that actually admit this. [/quote]
I do too. I would rather they admit it’s killing and be ok with it than pretend some alternate reality of the facts.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Here’s another thought exercise:
If a couple conceives via In vitro fertilisation, but has to use a surrogate mother, does the surrogate mother have a right abort the baby if she so chooses? [/quote]
No.
Here’s another thought exercise.
In vitro fertilisation results in the fertilisation of a multitude of eggs, not just one.
Every one of those embryos is, by definition, a living human.
If only one of those embryos is implanted, what happens to the others, and should we care? Why or why not?
Should in vitro fertilisation be banned because it results in the wholesale slaughter of innocent human lives?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
However, we can all probably agree that the only reasons one may do that(since your life is not at risk in this hypothetical) are:
- the President in question is a despicable human being, deemed by you unworthy of life.
- you are a despicable human being.[/quote]
But wouldn’t you in effect be a slave? A kidnapped slave, at that, held against your will to do a task that you never volunteered for, and would under any other circumstances be unwilling to do?
And as we both know, Exodus 21:16 forbids what the CIA did, so the moral thing to do would be to put them to death.
Tee hee.[/quote]
Yes, you would be a slave if you were unwilling to continue supporting the President(that is why you would have the right to unplug yourself) and had to leave yourself plugged in. If the hypothetical said that the person in question would ordinarily be unwilling to do what he was doing, I missed it.
Yes, the CIA agents who kidnapped you would deserve to be killed, as would a woman’s rapist.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Abortion is simply the execution of a human being. An innocent one at that. [/quote]
This.
I have much more respect for the Pro-aborts that actually admit this. [/quote]
I do too. I would rather they admit it’s killing and be ok with it than pretend some alternate reality of the facts.[/quote]
Well, then, you should love this article. Enjoy.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In other words Varqanir, I’m not rejecting nor am I advocating others should reject what the best and the brightest have to say about evolution. Full disclosure I believe in creation and evolution. I think the two go hand in hand. [/quote]
Okay. Fair enough.
But just so you know, this:
is talking about abiogenesis (life from non-life), not evolution. Different theory. A complementary theory, but evolution begins where abiogenesis ends.
And anyway, who’s to say that life didn’t arise from dirt? Just add water, and you’ve got primordial soup!
[/quote]
Interesting, I’ve never heard the term abiogenesis. I’ll look it up.
Adds an interesting twist to, “Soup, it does a body good!”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Maybe because science has yet to prove the origins of man.
[/quote]
The truth is out there, Marine.[/quote]
You seem so…so…sure, soldier.[/quote]
Aren’t you sure that the truth is out there?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Here’s another thought exercise:
If a couple conceives via In vitro fertilisation, but has to use a surrogate mother, does the surrogate mother have a right abort the baby if she so chooses? [/quote]
No.
[/quote]
Under current law doesn’t the surrogate have this right? Further, wouldn’t restricting abortion in this case be restricting a woman’s right to make choices regarding her body?
[quote]
Here’s another thought exercise.
In vitro fertilisation results in the fertilisation of a multitude of eggs, not just one.
Every one of those embryos is, by definition, a living human.
If only one of those embryos is implanted, what happens to the others, and should we care? Why or why not?
Should in vitro fertilisation be banned because it results in the wholesale slaughter of innocent human lives?[/quote]
That is a tough one.
I think we should care and I think we should care because we did intentionally create (well encourage) that life. Should we ban the procedure, I’m unsure here. My gut say not. If multiple eggs are fertilized should the parents be responsible for all of the lives? That’s tricky especially because we know so early on that fertilization occurred. Is this where consciousness or viability plays a role? Maybe.
I don’t know the answer. I have to think about it. I guess that’s why I’m glad I’m not God.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Abortion is simply the execution of a human being. An innocent one at that. [/quote]
This.
I have much more respect for the Pro-aborts that actually admit this. [/quote]
I do too. I would rather they admit it’s killing and be ok with it than pretend some alternate reality of the facts.[/quote]
Well, then, you should love this article. Enjoy.
[/quote]
I knew I shouldn’t have clicked that, lol. shudder
I was particularly moved by “A life worth sacrificing.” Right there at the end. Quality summation for the “article”.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Here’s another thought exercise:
If a couple conceives via In vitro fertilisation, but has to use a surrogate mother, does the surrogate mother have a right abort the baby if she so chooses? [/quote]
No.
[/quote]
Under current law doesn’t the surrogate have this right? Further, wouldn’t restricting abortion in this case be restricting a woman’s right to make choices regarding her body?
[/quote]
Current which law? There are no federal laws on surrogacy, and they vary from state to state.
But presumably the surrogate signed a contract which obligates her to carry the baby to term. Under the conditions of that contract, she does not have the right to terminate the pregnancy.